MARTIN LEWIS on "It pays to watch" says we may NOT be paid interest (ICESAVE)...

Dealmad

jetfighter wrote: »

:rolleyes: Some people never learn. We didn't put our money "into Iceland" - this excellent post explains things much better to those of you who seem unable to "get it":
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=14827245&postcount=12

yawn


I know for one if i was putting £30,000 in a bank i would look at every detail , hence why i never went with Icesave in the first place because i knew for one it was risky... hence i went with KE as it was less because i knew i would be fully covered upto 35,000 , but then i looked into great detail before i did this , i didnt just take martins word for it or a papers word for it , i researched it all myself!!!

chesky369

Let's be realistic - NOBODY puts their savings into a bank they think will fail. I avoided the whatI thought was dodgy ICICI and went for the nice, safe option of ICEsave and, to be honest, as far as service went, I never had a moment's problem with them. This, plus the good interest rate and the fact it was rated so well, made me a very happy saver.

I've calculated that, because most of my ICEsave monies are in fixed-term accounts, I shall probably lose about £2k in interest. I think I'd be less than human if I had no regrets about this but I've decided to take a very Zen attitude to it and be thankful for the UK government decision. However, I'd be mad to say I wouldn't LOVE it if I discovered we'd get the interest owed.

meester

Dealmad wrote: »

So lets all deposit out money aboard then lets bail out everyone out when the banks aboard fail , seems like a great idea quick lets all deposit our money out of the UK , wow seems like a great idea :rolleyes:

Not abroad.

Landsbanki opened a UK subsidiary and were given a licence to trade as a bank by the FSA.

If I wanted to open an account with say the Bank of Pakistan, they are NOT FSA-registered, they are ABROAD, and I would not be protected.

Is that really hard to understand?

Dealmad

meester wrote: »

Not abroad.

Landsbanki opened a UK subsidiary and were given a licence to trade as a bank by the FSA.

If I wanted to open an account with say the Bank of Pakistan, they are NOT FSA-registered, they are ABROAD, and I would not be protected.

Is that really hard to understand?

But was it really hard to understand that you would need to claim under passport scheme as well , hence more risky?

Or wasnt this made clear to you as it was to me

jetfighter

Dealmad wrote: »

But was it really hard to understand that you would need to claim under passport scheme as well , hence more risky?

Or wasnt this made clear to you as it was to me

I meant to click "Quote" rather than "Thanks" - whoops. :rolleyes:

It was made perfectly clear to me that I would need to claim under the passport scheme. It was a guarantee offered to us by the Icelandic government. They failed to stick to their guarantee, so the UK government is stepping in to help out. That is all clear. Why was it more risky, though? Should we not trust foreign guarantees? I saw it as a bit different and potentially a little more hassle to claim, yes (two forms rather than one) but not risky.

shindigger

krisskross wrote: »

But isn't some of this money to pay everyone from taxpayers?
Should British taxpayers really be compensating investors for money perhaps lost in a foreign bank?

READ. LEARN. AND YOU THANKERS. YOU READ IT TOO. 4TH PARAGRAPH.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4910126.ece

meester

Dealmad wrote: »

But was it really hard to understand that you would need to claim under passport scheme as well , hence more risky?

Or wasnt this made clear to you as it was to me

It wasn't made clear at all. Martin spent about a year recommending it, and in his safe savings article for a long time claimed it was backed by the FSCS in the same way as other banks.

RikA_4

Dealmad wrote: »

But was it really hard to understand that you would need to claim under passport scheme as well , hence more risky?

Or wasnt this made clear to you as it was to me

Actually, at the time it looked like as though you were being covered by two government guarantees, so if anything it looked like a safer bet! (two governments being less likely to fail than one)

Obviously, the misunderstanding that the UK government weren't obliged to cover the first £16k if the Icelandic government failed to honour their "guarantee" makes this understanding invalid, but nevertheless, surely no-one expected the Icelandic government to renege on the guarantee (feel free to correct me if you think otherwise!), so I would argue that there was no more risk in banking with Icesave over any other FSA regulated, government-guaranteed banks. (*)

* At least up until the £35k limit. Of course, if you put more than the guaranteed amount, you were obviously at risk, but this is also true of other banks.

GeorgeHowell

It will be a travesty if the UK taxpayer ends up paying for accumulated interest to Icesave customers who chose not to get out earlier, despite the warnings. That's the only way people will learn not to emulate the bankers and chase high returns regardless of the risks.

meester

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

It will be a travesty if the UK taxpayer ends up paying for accumulated interest to Icesave customers who chose not to get out earlier, despite the warnings. That's the only way people will learn not to emulate the bankers and chase high returns regardless of the risks.

I checked my account the week before they went down, and my understanding was that my money AND my interest was fully protected, because it was within the limits, and even if Icesave were unsafe, there wasn't any suggestion Iceland would default on its obligations.